Brief Summary
This video discusses a DMCA takedown notice Spotify sent to the Revance team for their patches that modify the Spotify app. Rossmann explains the implications of this notice, particularly concerning the DMCA's Section 121, which deals with circumventing technological protection measures. He argues that while he supports paying for content, he strongly opposes the idea of facing legal penalties for modifying software on one's own computer, such as skipping certain lines of code. Rossmann also criticizes Spotify's business model and the potential overreach of DMCA laws, offering support to the Revance team and seeking legal experts to challenge the takedown notice.
- Spotify sent a DMCA takedown notice to Revance for patches modifying the Spotify app.
- The notice claims the patches circumvent technological protection measures under Section 121 of the DMCA.
- Rossmann opposes potential penalties for modifying software on one's own computer.
- He criticizes Spotify's business model and the overreach of DMCA laws.
- Rossmann offers support to the Revance team and seeks legal experts to challenge the takedown notice.
Introduction: DMCA Section 121 and Spotify's Takedown Notice
Louis Rossmann introduces the topic of the video: a DMCA takedown notice sent by Spotify to the Revance team. He emphasizes the severity of the potential penalties for violating the law in question, which could be 3 to 5 years in federal prison. The notice pertains to Section 121 of the DMCA, triggered by Revance's patches to the Spotify app posted on GitHub.
Spotify's Claims and Revance's Patches
Spotify's DMCA takedown notice targets Revance's "unlock premium" patch, asserting it's a derivative work that bypasses technological protection measures like encryption and transfer key protocols, violating Section 121 of the DMCA. Spotify argues the patch enables access to copyrighted content by circumventing encryption, transfer key protocols, and premium features like skipping. Revance claims the patch doesn't copy Spotify's code, enable downloads, or grant access to otherwise unavailable songs on free Spotify, mainly affecting convenience features. Legal precedents, such as 321 Studios versus MGM and MDY versus Blizzard, suggest bypassing software restrictions can be considered circumvention, even for features, not direct access to copyrighted works.
Rossmann's Stance on Spotify and Content Ownership
Rossmann states he does not use Spotify due to its business model, where users do not own the content they access. He prefers owning his media, such as CDs and DVDs, and creating copies for personal use. He expresses a willingness to pay for valuable software and media, recalling paying for SuSE Linux as a teenager.
How Revanced Works and the DMCA Implications
Rossmann explains how Revanced modifies the Spotify app by decompiling the APK, altering code, and recompiling it. He clarifies that Revanced doesn't enable music downloads, Spotify Connect, exclusive content access, or lossless quality. The modification involves skipping certain lines of code, which Rossmann compares to using ad blockers. He argues that criminalizing such modifications could extend to criminalizing ad blocking, which he uses to block ads on paid news subscriptions.
The Core Argument: Ownership of Your Computer
Rossmann argues against the idea of being penalized for modifying software on his own computer. He questions the right of companies to dictate what code can and cannot be run on a user's personal device. He believes that if Spotify wants to limit user interaction with their service, they should do so on the server side, not by criminalizing client-side modifications.
Critique of Spotify's Business Model and DMCA Overreach
Rossmann criticizes Spotify's business model, particularly the patenting of technology to ascertain users' emotional states. He finds this practice invasive and compares it to plotting a crime without committing it, suggesting the intent is still problematic. He argues that a business model that relies on sending people to prison for reverse engineering is flawed.
Legal Arguments Against Spotify's Takedown Notice
Rossmann presents legal arguments against Spotify's takedown notice, stating it is procedurally deficient under 17 USC Section 512 and GitHub's DMCA guidance. He points out that the notice lacks specific file paths and factual explanations of the alleged circumvention. He argues that the patches only operate on lawfully obtained copies and target business model restrictions, not effective access controls, citing cases like Chamberlain versus Skylink and Lexmark versus Static Control.
Offering Support and Seeking Legal Assistance
Rossmann acknowledges the risk involved in pushing back against the DMCA notice, potentially leading to legal repercussions. He offers support to the Revance team through his nonprofit, Fulu Foundation, which aims to challenge abuses of the law. He seeks IP lawyers interested in taking on the case, emphasizing the need for expertise in DMCA law and a shared belief in the issue.
Final Thoughts and Call to Action
Rossmann reiterates his belief in paying for content but condemns the threat of imprisonment for modifying software on one's computer. He criticizes those who support such laws and urges viewers to recognize the potential impact on their own freedoms. He encourages those with relevant expertise or those affected by the issue to contact him.
